EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS AND CONTROL GROUPS

EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS AND CONTROL GROUPS:

Experimental research requires, then, that the responses of at least two groups be compared. One group will receive some special  Treatment —the manipulation implemented by the experimenter—and another group will receive either no treatment or a different treatment. Any group that receives a treatment is called an Experimental group ; A group that receives no treatment is called a Control group. (In some experiments there are multiple experimental and control groups, each of which is compared with another group.)  By employing both experimental and control groups in an experiment, researchers are able to rule out the possibility that something other than the experimental manipulation produced the results observed in the experiment. Without a control group, we couldn’t be sure that some other variable, such as the temperature at the time we were running the experiment, the color of the experimenter’s hair, or even the mere passage of time, wasn’t causing the changes observed. For example, consider a medical researcher who thinks he has invented a medicine that cures the common cold. To test his claim, he gives the medicine one day to a group of 20 people who have colds and finds that 10 days later all of them are cured.  Eureka? Not so fast. An observer viewing this fl awed study might reasonably argue that the people would have gotten better even without the medicine. What the researcher obviously needed was a control group consisting of people with colds who  don’t get the medicine and whose health is also checked 10 days later. Only if there is a significant difference between experimental and control groups can the effectiveness of the medicine be assessed. Through the use of control groups, then, researchers can isolate specific causes for their findings—and draw cause-and-effect inferences. Returning to Latané and Darley’s experiment, we see that the researchers needed to translate their hypothesis into something testable. To do this, they decided to create a false emergency situation that would appear to require the aid of a bystander. As their experimental manipulation, they decided to vary the number of bystanders present. They could have had just one experimental group with, say, two people present, and a control group for comparison purposes with just one person present. Instead, they settled on a more complex procedure involving the creation of groups of three sizes—consisting of two, three, and six people—that could be compared with one another. 

Description About Experimental Research

Experimental Research:

The only way psychologists can establish cause-and-effect relationships through research is by carrying out an experiment. In a formal Experiment, the researcher investigates the relationship between two (or more) variables by deliberately changing one variable in a controlled situation and observing the effects of that change on other aspects of the situation. In an experiment, then, the conditions are created and controlled by the researcher, who deliberately makes a change in those conditions in order to observe the effects of that change.

The change that the researcher deliberately makes in an experiment is called the Experimental manipulation. Experimental manipulations are used to detect relationships between different variables (Staub, 2011).

Several steps are involved in carrying out an experiment, but the process typically begins with the development of one or more hypotheses for the experiment to test. For example, Latané and Darley, in testing their theory of the diffusion of responsibility in bystander behavior, developed this hypothesis: The higher the number of people who witness an emergency situation is, the less likely it is that any of them will help the victim. They then designed an experiment to test this hypothesis.

Their first step was to formulate an operational definition of the hypothesis by conceptualizing it in a way that could be tested. Latané and Darley had to take into account the fundamental principle of experimental research mentioned earlier: Experimenters must manipulate at least one variable in order to observe the effects of the manipulation on another variable while keeping other factors in the situation constant. However, the manipulation cannot be viewed by itself, in isolation; if a cause-and-effect relationship is to be established, the effects of the manipulation must be compared with the effects of no manipulation or a different kind of manipulation.

Description Of Correlational Research

CORRELATIONAL RESEARCH:

In using the descriptive research methods we have discussed, researchers often wish to determine the relationship between two variables. Variables are behaviors, events, or other characteristics that can change, or vary, in some way. For example, in a study to determine whether the amount of studying makes a difference in test scores, the variables would be study time and test scores.

In correlational research, two sets of variables are examined to determine whether they are associated, or “correlated.” The strength and direction of the relationship between the two variables are represented by a mathematical statistic known as  a correlation (or, more formally, a correlation coefficient), which can range from +1.0 to -1.0.

A positive correlation indicates that as the value of one variable increases, we can predict that the value of the other variable will also increase. For example, if we predict that the more time students spend studying for a test, the higher their grades on the test will be, and that the less they study, the lower their test scores will be, we are expecting to find a positive correlation. (Higher values of the variable “amount of study time” would be associated with higher values of the variable “test score,” and lower values of “amount of study time” would be associated with lower values of “test score.”) The correlation, then, would be indicated by a positive number, and the stronger the association was between studying and test scores, the closer the number would be to + 1.0. For example, we might find a correlation of +.85 between test scores and amount of study time, indicating a strong positive association.

In contrast, a negative correlation tells us that as the value of one variable increases, the value of the other decreases. For instance, we might predict that as the number of hours spent studying increases, the number of hours spent partying decreases. Here we are expecting a negative correlation, ranging between 0 and - 1.0. More studying is associated with less partying, and less studying is associated with more partying. The stronger the association between studying and partying is, the closer the correlation will be to -1.0. For instance, a correlation of -.85 would indicate a strong negative association between partying and studying. 

Of course, it’s quite possible that little or no relationship exists between two variables. For instance, we would probably not expect to find a relationship between number of study hours and height. Lack of a relationship would be indicated by a correlation close to 0. For example, if we found a correlation of - .02 or +.03, it would indicate that there is virtually no association between the two variables; knowing how much someone studies does not tell us anything about how tall he or she is. 

When two variables are strongly correlated with each other, we are tempted to assume that one variable causes the other. For example, if we find that more study time is associated with higher grades, we might guess that more studying  causes higher grades. Although this is not a bad guess, it remains just a guess—because finding that two variables are correlated does not mean that there is a causal relationship between them. The strong correlation suggests that knowing how much a person studies can help us predict how that person will do on a test, but it does not mean that the studying causes the test performance. Instead, for instance, people who are more interested in the subject matter might study more than do those who are less interested, and so the amount of interest, not the number of hours spent studying, would predict test performance. The mere fact that two variables occur together does not mean that one causes the other. 

Similarly, suppose you learned that the number of houses of worship in a large sample of cities was positively correlated with the number of people arrested, meaning that the more houses of worship, the more arrests there were in a city. Does this mean that the presence of more houses of worship caused the greater number of arrests? Almost surely not, of course. In this case, the underlying cause is probably the size of the city: In bigger cities, there are both more houses of worship and more arrests.

One more example illustrates the critical point that correlations tell us nothing about cause and effect but merely provide a measure of the strength of a relationship between two variables. We might find that children who watch a lot of television programs featuring high levels of aggression are likely to demonstrate a relatively high degree of aggressive behavior and that those who watch few television shows that portray aggression are apt to exhibit a relatively low degree of such behavior. But we cannot say that the aggression is caused by the TV viewing, because many other explanations are possible. 

For instance, it could be that children who have an unusually high level of energy seek out programs with aggressive content and are more aggressive. The children’s energy level, then, could be the true cause of the children’s higher incidence of aggression. Also, people who are already highly aggressive might choose to watch shows with a high aggressive content because they are aggressive. Clearly, then, any number of causal sequences are possible—none of which can be ruled out by correlational research (Feshbach & Tangney, 2008; Grimes & Bergen, 2008). 

The inability of correlational research to demonstrate cause-and-effect relationships is a crucial drawback to its use. There is, however, an alternative technique that does establish causality: the experiment. 

Description Of Case Study

THE CASE STUDY :

When they read of a suicide bomber in the Middle East, many people wonder what it is about the terrorist’s personality or background that leads to such behavior. To answer this question, psychologists might conduct a case study. In contrast to a survey, in which many people are studied, a Case Study is an in-depth, intensive investigation of a single individual or a small group. Case studies often include psychological testing, a procedure in which a carefully designed set of questions is used to gain some insight into the personality of the individual or group (Gass et al., 2000;Addus, Chen, & Khan, 2007).

When case studies are used as a research technique, the goal is often not only to learn about the few individuals being examined but also to use the insights gained from the study to improve our understanding of people in general. Sigmund Freud developed his theories through case studies of individual patients. Similarly, case studies of terrorists might help identify others who are prone to violence. The drawback to case studies? If the individuals examined are unique in certain ways, it is impossible to make valid generalizations to a larger population. Still, they sometimes lead the way to new theories and treatments for psychological disorders.

Description Of Survey Research

SURVEY RESEARCH:

There is no more straightforward way of finding out what people think, feel, and do than asking them directly. For this reason, surveys are an important research method. In Survey Research, a sample of people chosen to represent a larger group of interest (a population) is asked a series of questions about their behavior, thoughts, or attitudes. Survey methods have become so sophisticated that even with a very small sample researchers are able to infer with great accuracy how a larger group would respond. For instance, a sample of just a few thousand voters is sufficient to predict within one or two percentage points who will win a presidential election—if the representative sample is chosen with care (Sommer & Sommer, 2001; Groves et al., 2004; Igo, 2006). 

Researchers investigating helping behavior might conduct a survey by asking people to complete a questionnaire in which they indicate their reluctance for giving aid to someone. Similarly, researchers interested in learning about sexual practices have carried out surveys to learn which practices are common and which are not and to chart changing notions of sexual morality over the last several decades (Reece et al.,2009; Santelli et al., 2009).

However, survey research has several potential pitfalls. For one thing, if the sample of people who are surveyed is not representative of the broader population of interest, the results of the survey will have little meaning. For instance, if a sample of voters in a town includes only Republicans, it would hardly be useful for predicting the results of an election in which both Republicans and Democrats are voting. Consequently, researchers using surveys strive to obtain a random sample of the population in question, in which every voter in the town has an equal chance of being included in the sample receiving the survey (Dale, 2006; Vitak et al., 2011; Davern, 2013).

In addition, survey respondents may not want to admit to holding socially undesirable attitudes. (Most racists know they are racists and might not want to admit it.) 

Furthermore, people may not want to admit they engage in behaviors that they feel are somehow abnormal—a problem that plagues surveys of sexual behavior because people are often reluctant to admit what they really do in private. Finally, in some cases, people may not even be consciously aware of what their true attitudes are or why they hold them. 

Description Of Naturalistic Observation

NATURALISTIC OBSERVATION:

In naturalistic observation, the investigator observes some naturally occurring behavior and does not make a change in the situation. For example, a researcher investigating helping behavior might observe the kind of help given to victims in a high-crime area of a city. The important point to remember about naturalistic observation is that the researcher simply records what occurs, making no modification in the situation that is being observed (Moore, 2002; Rustin, 2006; Kennison & Bowers, 2011).

Although the advantage of naturalistic observation is obvious—we get a sample of what people do in their “natural habitat”—there is also an important drawback: the inability to control any of the factors of interest. For example, we might find so few naturally occurring instances of helping behavior that we would be unable to draw any conclusions. Because naturalistic observation prevents researchers from making changes in a situation, they must wait until the appropriate conditions occur. Furthermore, if people know they are being watched, they may alter their reactions and produce behavior that is not truly representative..

Description of Archival research..

ARCHIVAL RESEARCH:

Suppose that, like the psychologists Latané and Darley (1970), you were interested in finding out more about emergency situations in which bystanders did not provide help. One of the first places you might turn to would be historical accounts. By searching newspaper records, for example, you might find support for the notion that a decrease in helping behavior historically has accompanied an increase in the number of bystanders. 

Using newspaper articles is an example of archival research. In archival research existing data, such as census documents, college records, online databases, and newspaper,clippings, are examined to test a hypothesis. For example, college transcripts may be used to determine if gender differences exist in academic performance (Sullivan, Riccio, & Reynolds, 2008; Fisher & Barnes-Farrell, 2013).

Archival research is a relatively inexpensive means of testing a hypothesis because someone else has already collected the basic data. Of course, the use of existing data has several drawbacks. For one thing, the data may not be in a form that allows the researcher to test a hypothesis fully. The information could be incomplete, or it could have been collected haphazardly (Simonton, 2000; Riniolo et al., 2003; Vega, 2006). Most attempts at archival research are hampered by the simple fact that records with the necessary information often do not exist. In these instances, researchers often turn to another research method: naturalistic observation...

Descriptive Research

DESCRIPTIVE RESEARCH:

Let's begin by considering several types of descriptive research designed to systematically investigate a person ,group,or a pattern of behavior. These method include archival research,naturalistic observation,survey research,and case studies. 

ARCHIVAL RESEARCH:

Research in which existing data, such as census documents, college records, online databases, and newspaper clippings, are examined to test a hypothesis.

NATURALISTIC OBSERVATION:

Research in which an investigator observes some naturally occurring behavior and does not make a change in the situation.

SURVEY RESEARCH:

Research in which people chosen to represent a larger population are asked a series of questions about their behavior, thoughts, or attitudes.

THE CASE STUDY:

An in-depth, intensive investigation of an individual or small group of people.

CORRELATIONAL RESEARCH:

VARIABLES:

Behaviors, events, or other characteristics that can change, or vary, in some way.

CORRELATIONAL RESEARCH:

Research in which the relationship between two sets of variables is examined to determine whether they are associated, or “correlated.”

Psychological Research

Psychological Research:

Research —systematic inquiry aimed at the discovery of new knowledge—is a central ingredient of the scientific method in psychology. It provides the key to understanding the degree to which hypotheses (and the theories behind them) are accurate. Just as we can apply different theories and hypotheses to explain the same phenomena, we can use a number of alternative methods to conduct research. As we consider the major tools that psychologists use to conduct research, keep in mind that their relevance extends beyond testing and evaluating hypotheses in psychology. All of us carry out elementary forms of research on our own. For instance, a supervisor might evaluate an employee’s performance; a physician might systematically test the effects of different doses of a drug on a patient; a salesperson might compare different persuasive strategies. Each of these situations draws on the research practices we are about to discuss..

The scientific Method

Scientific method: The approach through which psychologists systematically acquire knowledge and understanding about behavior and other phenomena of interest.

Theories: Specifying Broad Explanations

In using the scientific method, psychologists start by identifying questions of interest. We have all been curious at some time about our observations of everyday behavior. If you have ever asked yourself why a particular teacher is so easily annoyed, why a friend is always late for appointments, or how your dog understands your commands, you have been formulating questions about behavior.

Psychologists, too, ask questions about the nature and causes of behavior. They may wish to explore explanations for everyday behaviors or for various phenomena. They may also pose questions that build on findings from their previous research or from research carried out by other psychologists. Or they may produce new questions that are based on curiosity, creativity, or insight. Once a question has been identified, the next step in the scientific method is to develop a theory to explain the observed phenomenon. Theories are broad explanations and predictions concerning phenomena of interest. They provide a framework for understanding the relationships among a set of otherwise unorganized facts or principles.

All of us have developed our own informal theories of human behavior, such as “People are basically good” or “People’s behavior is usually motivated by self-interest.” However, psychologists’ theories are more formal and focused. They are established on the basis of a careful study of the psychological literature to identify earlier relevant research and previously formulated theories, as well as psychologists’ general

knowledge of the field. Growing out of the diverse approaches employed by psychologists, theories

vary both in their breadth and in their level of detail. For example, one theory might seek to explain and predict a phenomenon as broad as emotional experience. A narrower theory might attempt to explain why people display the emotion of fear nonverbally after receiving a threat (Guerrero, La Valley, & Farinelli, 2008; Waller, Cray, & Burrows, 2008). Psychologists Bibb Latané and John Darley, responding to the failure of bystanders to intervene when Kitty Genovese was murdered in New York, developed what they called a theory of diffusion of responsibility (Latané & Darley, 1970). According to their theory, the greater the number of bystanders or witnesses to an event that calls for helping behavior, the more the responsibility for helping is perceived to be shared by all the bystanders. Thus, the greater the number of bystanders in an emergency situation, the smaller the share of the responsibility each person feels—and the less likely that any single person will come forward to help.

Hypotheses: Crafting Testable Predictions

Although the diffusion of responsibility theory seems to make sense, it represented only the beginning phase of Latané and Darley’s investigative process. Their next step was to devise a way to test their theory. To do this, they needed to create a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a prediction stated in a way that allows it

to be tested. Hypotheses stem from theories; they help test the underlying soundness of theories.

In the same way that we develop our own broad theories about the world, we also construct hypotheses about events and behavior. Those hypotheses can range from trivialities (such as why our English instructor wears those weird shirts) to more meaningful matters (such as what is the best way to study for a test). Although we rarely test these hypotheses systematically, we do try to determine whether they are right.

Perhaps we try comparing two strategies: cramming the night before an exam versus spreading out our study over several nights. By assessing which approach yields better test performance, we have created a way to compare the two strategies.

A hypothesis must be restated in a way that will allow it to be tested, which involves creating an operational definition. An operational definition is the translation of a hypothesis into specific, testable procedures that can be measured and observed.

There is no single way to go about devising an operational definition for a hypothesis; it depends on logic, the equipment and facilities available, the psychological perspective being employed, and ultimately the creativity of the researcher. For example, one researcher might develop a hypothesis that uses as an operational definition of “fear” an increase in heart rate. In contrast, another psychologist might

use as an operational definition of “fear” a written response to the question “How much fear are you experiencing at this moment?”

Latané and Darley’s hypothesis was a straightforward prediction from their more general theory of diffusion of responsibility: The more people who witness an emergency situation, the less likely it is that help will be given to a victim. They could, of course, have chosen another hypothesis (try to think of one!), but their initial

formulation seemed to offer the most direct test of the theory.

Psychologists rely on formal theories and hypotheses for many reasons. For one thing, theories and hypotheses allow them to make sense of unorganized, separate observations and bits of information by permitting them to place the pieces within a coherent framework. In addition, theories and hypotheses offer psychologists the opportunity to move beyond known facts and make deductions about unexplained

phenomena and develop ideas for future investigation (Cohen, 2003; Gurin, 2006; Howitt & Cramer, 2000).

In short, the scientific method, with its emphasis on theories and hypotheses, helps psychologists pose appropriate questions. With properly stated questions in hand, psychologists then can choose from a variety of research methods to find answers..

The Major Subfields of Psychology: Psychology’s Family Tree:

The study and practice of psychology encompasses a vast range of topics and a large number of subfields and specialty areas have developed as a result. Because human behavior is so varied, the number of subfields in psychology is constantly growing and evolving.

Psychology can be roughly divided into two major sections:

1. Research, which seeks to increase our knowledge base
2. Practice, through which our knowledge is applied to solving problems in the real world
3. Because psychology touches on a number of other subjects including biology, philosophy, anthropology, and sociology, new areas of research and practice are continually forming and evolving. Some of these subfields have been firmly established as areas of interest, and many colleges and universities offer courses and degree programs in these topics.

4. Abnormal Psychology:

• This subfield of psychology deals with the assessment, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of psychopathology.
• There are a variety of mental disorders that can cause distress and dysfunction. Some of these include mood disorder, anxiety disorders, and cognitive disorders. 
• Many different professionals work in the field of abnormal psychology and mental health including clinicians, counselors, psychiatric nurses, and psychiatrists. 

   Bio-psychology:

• This area of psychology is known by a number of titles including behavioral neuroscience, psychobiology, and neuropsychology.
• Biopsychologists study the relationship between the brain and behavior, such as how the brain and nervous system impact our thoughts, feeling, and moods.
• This field can be thought of as a combination of basic psychology and neuroscience.

   Clinical Psychology:

• Clinical psychology is the largest specialty area in psychology.
• These psychologists apply psychological principles and research to assess, diagnose, and treat patients with mental and emotional illnesses.
• Clinicians often work in private practices, but many also work in community centers or at universities and colleges.

   Cognitive Psychology:

• Cognitive psychology focuses on understanding the mental processes of how people think.
• Problem-solving, decision-making, language, intelligence, and attention are just a few of the topics studied by cognitive psychologists.
• Cognitive psychologists often use an information-processing model to describe how the mind works, suggesting that the brain stores and processes information much like a computer.

   Developmental Psychology:

• Developmental psychologists study the physical and cognitive development that occurs over the course of the lifespan.
• These psychologists generally specialize in an area such as infant, child, adolescent, or geriatric development, while others may study the effects of developmental delays.

   Experimental Psychology:

• Experimental psychologists utilize the scientific method to study a while range of human behaviors and psychological phenomena.
• Experimental psychology is often viewed as a distinct subfield within psychology, but experimental techniques and methods are actually used extensively throughout every subfield of psychology.
• Some of the methods used in experimental psychology include experiments, correlational studies, case studies, and naturalistic observation.

   Health Psychology

• Health psychology is centered on understanding how psychological, biological, social, and environmental factors influence health and wellness.
• Health psychologists are often deal with health-related issues such as weight management, smoking cessation, stress management, and nutrition.
• Health psychologists are also involved in designing public prevention programs designed to educate people about risky behaviors and adopt healthier one..

   Industrial-Organizational Psychology:

• Psychologists in this field apply psychological principles to research on workplace issues such as productivity and behavior.
• Some psychologists in this field work in areas such as human factors, ergonomics, and human-computer interaction.
• Research in this field is known as applied research because it seeks to solve real world problems.

   Personality Psychology:

• Personality psychologists study the characteristic patterns of thoughts, feelings, and behavior that make each person unique.
• These psychologists often work in academic settings as instructors or researchers.

   Social Psychology:

• Social psychologists study social behaviors, including how individual self-image and behavior is impacted by interactions with others.
• These psychologists often conduct research in academic settings, but others work in such areas such as advertising and government.

   School Psychology:

• School psychologists work within the educational system to help children with emotional, social, and academic issues.
• These psychologists collaborate with teachers, parents, and students to find solutions to academic, social, and emotional problems.
• Most school psychologists work in elementary and secondary schools, but others work in private clinics, hospitals, state agencies, and universities. Some go into private practice and serve as consultants, especially those with a doctoral degree in school psychology.

A brief history of psychology

In a philosophical context psychology was around thousands of years ago in ancient Greece, Egypt, India, Persia and China. Medieval Muslim psychologists and doctors had a more clinical and experimental approach to psychology - they were the first to have psychiatric hospitals.

Pierre Cabanis (France) created biological psychology in 1802. A physiologist, Cabanis wrote a well known essay called "Relations between the physical and moral aspects of man" ("Rapports du physique et du moral de l'homme"). He interpreted the mind according to his previous studies of biology. He believed that sensibility and soul were parts of the nervous system.

1879, the birthdate of psychology - In 1879 Wilhelm Wundt, Germany, founded psychology as a truly independent experimental field of study. He set up the first laboratory that carried out psychological research exclusively at Leipzig University. Wundt is known today as the father of psychology.

Principles of Psychology, published by William James, an American philosopher in 1980, was discussed by psychologists worldwide for many decades.

Hermann Abbingaus (1850-1909), University of Berlin, was the first psychologist to study memory extensively. Ivan Pavlov (1849-1936), famous today even among lay people for the term Pavlov's dog, researched the learning process called "classical conditioning."

Psychoanalysis

Behaviorism, psychoanalytic theory, humanism, and cognitive perspective are all studied currently by psychologists. Psychology has become much more eclectic.

Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), Austria, developed psychoanalysis - a method of psychotherapy ("What is psychotherapy?"). His understanding of the mind was mainly based on interpretive methods, introspection and clinical observations. He focused on resolving unconscious conflict, mental distress and psychopathology. Freud's theories on sexuality and the unconscious mind became famous; probably because sexuality was a taboo subject at the time. The main principle of Freud's theory was that the unconscious is responsible for most thought and behavior in everybody and the disorders of the mentally ill. Freud had a considerable influence in psychiatrist Carl Jung (Switzerland).

Structuralism vs. Functionalism

E. B Titchener (USA), a student of Wundt, strongly believed in structuralism. William James and John Dewey were strong believers in functionalism. Structuralism is interested in "what is consciousness?" while functionalism is interested in "what is consciousness for? What are the purposes or functions of consciousness and basic mental processes?"

Structuralists and functionalists disagreed with each other passionately. Most agree there was never a clear winner in the debate - but their discussion did lead to a rapid spread of psychology in the USA, as well as some other parts of the world. Stanley Hall set up the first psychology lab in the United States at Johns Hopkins University.

Behaviorism

In 1913 an American psychologist, John B. Watson, founded a new movement that altered the focus of psychology. Watson believed that structuralists and functionalists deviated too much from objective science. Put simply, Watson said that psychology should focus on the study of behavior because he believed that behavior was not the result of internal mental processes, but rather the result of how we respond to stimuli from the environment. Behaviorism focused on how people learn new behavior from the environment. Behaviorism became very popular in the USA. B. F Skinner followed in Watson's footsteps.

Humanism

Some psychologists viewed behaviorism and psychoanalytic theory as too dehumanizing. Rather than being victims of the environment or the unconscious, humanists said that humans are innately good and that our own mental processes played an active role in our behavior. The humanist movement valued highly our emotions, free will, and a subjective view of experience.

Cognitive Theory

This started in the 1970s and is seen as the most recent school of thought in psychology. Cognitive perspective is much more objective and calculating than humanism. However, it differs from behaviorism in that it focuses on mental processes extensively.

Cognitive theorists believe that we take in information from our environment through our senses and then process the data mentally by organizing it, manipulating it, remembering it, and relating it to information we had stored previously. Cognitive theory is applied to language, memory, learning, perceptual systems, mental disorders and dreams.

Today

Dominant movements do not really exist today in the way they used to. Behaviorism, psychoanalytic theory, humanism, and cognitive perspective are all studied currently by psychologists. Psychology has become much more eclectic (selecting what appears to be best from every doctrine, movement or school of thought)..

what is psychology?

Psychology is the scientific study of the mind and behavior.  Psychology is a multifaceted discipline and includes many sub-fields of study such areas as human development, sports, health, clinical, social behavior and cognitive processes.

Psychology is really a very new science, with most advances happening over the past 150 years or so.  However, it's origins can be traced back to ancient Greece, 400 – 500 years BC.  The emphasis was a philosophical one, with great thinkers such as Socrates influencing Plato, who in turn influenced Aristotle.

Philosophers used to discuss many topics now studied by modern psychology, such as memory, free will, attraction etc.

In the early days of psychology there were two dominant theoretical perspectives.  An American psychologist named William James (1842-1910) developed an approach which came to be known as functionalism.  He argued that the mind is constantly changing and it is pointless to look for the building blocks of experience. Instead, focus should be on how and why an organism does something. It was suggested that psychologists should look for the underlying cause of behavior and the mental the processes involved. This emphasis on the causes and consequences of behavior has influenced contemporary psychology.

Structuralism was the name given to the approach pioneered by Wilhelm Wundt. The term originated from Edward Titchener, an American psychologist who had been trained by Wundt. Structuralism relied on trained introspection, a research method whereby subjects related what was going on in their minds while performing a certain task. However, it proved to be unreliable method because there was too much individual variation in the experiences and reports of research subjects.

Despite the failing of introspection Wundt is an important figure in the history of psychology as he opened the first laboratory dedicated to psychology in 1879, and its opening is usually thought of as the beginning of modern psychology. Wundt was important because he separated psychology from philosophy by analyzing the workings of the mind using more objective and standardized procedures.

Because psychology is a science it attempts to investigate the causes of behavior using systematic and objective procedures for observation, measurement and analysis,backed-up by theoretical interpretations, generalizations, explanations and predictions.

The classic contemporary perspectives in psychology to adopt these strategies were the behaviorists, who were renowned for their reliance on controlled laboratory experiment and rejection of any unseen or subconscious forces as causes of behavior.  And later,cognitive psychology adopted this rigorous, scientific, lab based scientific approach too.

With its broad scope, psychology investigates an enormous range of phenomena: learning and memory, sensation and perception, motivation and emotion, thinking and language, personality and social behavior, intelligence,  child development,mental illness, and much more.

Furthermore, psychologists examine these topics from a variety of complementary psychological perspectives. 

Each psychological perspective is underpinned by a shared set of assumptions of what people are like, what is important to study and how to study it.  Some conduct detailed biological studies of the brain, others explore how we process information; others analyze the role of evolution, and still others study the influence of culture and society.

Critical Evaluation

Kuhn (1962) argues that a field of study can only legitimately be regarded as a science if most of its followers subscribe to a common perspective or paradigm. Kuhn believes that psychology is still pre-paradigmatic, while others believe it’s already experienced scientific revolutions (Wundt’s structuralism being replaced by Watson’s behaviorism, in turn replaced by the information-processing approach). The crucial point here is: can psychology be considered a science if psychologists disagree about what to study and how to study it?